Are the Nets the Worst Team Ever?

After 48 games the New Jersey Nets have only managed to win four times. Such a record projects to about seven wins across an entire season, or a record that would set the NBA’s mark for regular season futility. And this begs the question, are the New Jersey Nets of the 2009-10 season really the worst team in NBA history?

Certainly the won-loss record says so. But in evaluating teams, efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) gives us a better picture. And that picture says the Nets are not quite the worst team ever. Currently the Nets are posting the following numbers:

Points scored per 100 possessions (offensive efficiency): 94.8

Points surrendered per 100 possessions (defensive efficiency): 107.1

Efficiency differential: -12.4

Since the 1973-74 season (the first year we have enough data to calculate possessions), here are the lowest marks with respect to efficiency differential:

Dallas Mavericks [1992-93]: -14.7

Denver Nuggets [1997-98]: -12.6

LA Clippers [1999-00]: -11.9

Vancouver Grizzlies [1996-97]: -11.2

Houston Rockets [1982-83]: -11.0

Miami Heat [1988-89]: -10.9

LA Clippers [1986-87]: -10.7

Vancouver Grizzlies [1995-96]: -10.5

Philadelphia 76ers [1995-96]: -10.5

Portland Trail Blazers [2005-06]: -10.4

The Clippers and Grizzlies appear twice on this list (thought I would just mention that). As for the Nets, their current mark ranks third. So although this is the worst Nets team in history (their previous worst mark of -8.0 in 1987-88 currently ranks 40th since 1973-74), one could argue that the Nets in 2009-10 are not the worst team in NBA history.

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that this team is very, very bad. And naturally we wonder what happened. To understand the wonder that is the 2009-10 Nets, we need to look at the individual players. That look – presented in Table One – indicates that the productivity of the Nets this season has been worth 5.5 wins. So again, the Nets are not quite as bad as they appear (but again, they are really, really bad).

When we look at the performances of these players last year we see that the Nets should be bad, but not quite as horrible as we see. Had each player on the Nets maintained the per-minute performance we saw last year, the Nets would expect to have a current mark of 14-34. This would still be the worst mark in the Eastern Conference, but actually better than the record currently posted by both the Golden State Warriors and the Minnesota Timberwolves.

In looking at he numbers for each individual players we can start to assign some responsbility for the disaster that is the 2009-10 season. Certainly much of the blame should be directed at the people who assembled this roster. But we can also see from Table One that two of the team’s point guards have been a particular problem. Rafer Alston and Devin Harris have combined to produce 5.5 fewer wins than we would expect given each player’s per-minute production in 2008-09. So a good chunk of the team’s decline from bad to disaster can be linked to the production received from just two players.

Luckily for the Nets, Alston has departed. In addition, the Nets have also added Kris Humprhries, a slightly above average big man. These two changes might give fans of this team hope.

No, the Nets are not going to morph into a good team in the near future. But they might progress to just bad. And if that progression somehow produces six more wins across the team’s final 34 games, the Nets can avoid the distinction of posting the worst record in NBA history. Yes, that isn’t much of a goal. But in such a season, it’s about all the fans of this team have left.

31 Responses to "Are the Nets the Worst Team Ever?"

They are unwatchable on TV, and the gambit of having a great deal of money to acquire perhaps two free agents seems laughable.
They are also jockeying to draft John Wall, which would force a trade of Devin Harris on the cheap, unless they do it before the trading deadline and gamble that they will get Wall in the draft.

But here’s the mystery for Professor Berri: why have so many of the Nets players had substantial declines in production?

My understanding of Professor Berri’s work is that NBA players are usually fairly consistent from year to year (particularly if the players are not rookies or older player). Yet, we see quite a few Nets players have had substantial declines: Harris, Dooling, Hayes, Simmons, Alston, Najera, and Battie have all had MAJOR declines in their production (as measured by WP48). Why? Some have had a few injuries, but not all. And they aren’t particularly old. Is it at all odd to have SEVEN veteran players all have major declines in production simultaneously?

I dont get these declines in production.

(I note, BTW, that their younger players – Lopez, Boone, Lee, CDR, Yi, Humphries – are all pretty close in production to what they did last year. It’s only the veterans that have declined substantially.)

Looking at the 8 players with 500 minutes or more I see 3 are slightly better, 2 are unchanged, 1 is slightly worse, 2 are much worse. The low minute players are going to have very dynamic numbers due to the small sample size. It is curious that so many of the low minute players have worse stats, but I’m sure you can find examples of teams that have an unusual amount of low minute players with improved stats as well. It’s probably to be expected from random effects.

I think if Devin Harris were healthy they’d have about 8 wins already.

The morale factor likely has some validity. When a season is clearly shot, it’s very difficult to give 100% in practice, game prep, film study, etc. Most people lack that level of discipline, esp. top athletes who’ve been pampered and coddled since the 7th grade. Even if players still give 100% effort in games (which most do) the team will lose a few more than it should.

If the New Jersey Nets would have simply decided to keep Lawrence Frank, as their head coach for the balance of this season, no matter what their actual W-L record might have been, they would already have amassed a double digit wins total by this point.

the Nets are tanking this year … in the worst way possible … in an effort to land the 2010 No. 1 [overall] Draft Pick, i.e. John Wall, and set themselves up for the very real possibility of becoming a solid franchise for the next 10 years, on the back of:

Thanks for the responses. While most of the decline is due to those two players, that’s only because those players have gotten substantial minutes. On a WP48 basis (rather than a WP basis), the declines of Dooling, Simmons, Hayes, et al are just as bad, or worse, than the declines of Harris and Alston.

Now, I understand that one can argue that these guys are just bit players who are largely irrelevant to the team. But Dooling, Simmons, and Hayes (at least) all played major minutes last year and were expected to play large roles on the team this year. This year, they are playing much lesser roles – among the reasons for this is that they have all played so poorly. So I don’t think that the modest decline in their WP number is indicative of their real impact on the team – they were expected to play major roles at acceptable standards. Instead, they have played so poorly (in terms of WP48) that the coach(es) have not been able to play them large minutes – thus making their declines in WP terms appear to be more benign than they were.

Sorry to vent – I’m just a frustrated Nets fan. I expected Harris, Dooling, Alston, Hayes and Simmons to all play signficant roles in keeping the team afloat this year. All 5 have played much more poorly than I expected based on their prior WP48 numbers – one (Alston) so much that he was released and two others (Hayes/Simmons) so much that they are getting much fewer minutes.

In general the difference between the PF and C has been quite small. Last year, though, the difference was much larger. Not sure why this happened. For awhile I was just using three positions (PF-C, SF, G). But in both books we used all five, so I went back to that convention last summer. Not sure which approach is better.

Even th0ugh Vince Carter appears to be on the decline, I think losing him was a bigger blow to the Nets than just the loss of his own production.

A high usage fairly efficient scorer that can create, shoot from the outside, and finish at the basket will draw a lot of attention from opposing defenses when he’s the main offensive threat. In fact, sometimes the opposing team’s game plan will be designed to stop him. At the margin, that has to help the other players a little. It’s just very difficult to isolate statistically because a very small benefit probably accrues to several players.

It’s the combination of 5 things which have led to the Nets historically performance, so far, this season:

1. The Loss of Vince Carter, as their keynote player, was huge. Everything they did last season revolved around VC, and replacing him with a combo of Lee, Alston and Battie was not going to substitute for that specific loss.

2. The injuries which they sustained in the pre-season and in the initial stage of the regular season to several key players on this year’s team, e.g. Harris and Dooling, were damaging.

3. The decision to give copious amounts of PT this season to Yi Jianlian, in hopes of further developing his individual game, means that they are playing 4 vs. 5 for large segments of their games.

4. The decision to fire Lawrence Frank, after they lost several close games early in the schedule, in spite of their many injuried players, put the final nail in the coffin for this season.

5. Their “big picture” decision to “tank” this year … in hopes of landing John Wall in the 2010 NBA Draft.

——————————-

Todd2,

IMO, Wall is in a completely different category of player, compared with Cousins.

Master Wall is a franchise-changer; while, Mr. Cousins is merely a good NBA prospect.

re: “In general the difference between the PF and C has been quite small. Last year, though, the difference was much larger. Not sure why this happened. For awhile I was just using three positions (PF-C, SF, G). But in both books we used all five, so I went back to that convention last summer. Not sure which approach is better.“

1. When evaluating NBA players properly it is absolutely fundamental to categorize them by the correct position, i.e. the one at which they are actually used most frequently by their team, from the five designated slots which are actually used by NBA coaches [i.e. PG, OG,SF, PF and C].

IMO, failing to do this properly, unfortunately, reduces a great deal of the actual value associated with the accumulation of stats-based data, in the first place.

Michael, I agree that morale has something to do with it. Seeing Harris playing and its obvious that he is unfocused and unmotivated. The awful losing certainly got to him. I don’t know if we can prove that but a decent test would be check Alston current production in Miami, its smaller sample but it would be useful to see how close to last year form he is there.

The one problem I have with classifying players into one of the 5 standard player categories is that not every player fits neatly into the stereotype of the position.

Some guys guard position “X” on defense, but play more like a “Y” on offense.

Some guys are versatile enough to play multiple positions well on either side of the ball.

Some guys have a hybrid of skills.

It’s my view that you should probably classify players according to who they defend, but measure their offense as a group independent skills that don’t have to be associated with any particular position.

IMO,
Cousins is on par with Dajuan Blair. I don’t know about franchise changing. How often does a franchise changing player actually come around? And then how often does that lucky team combine that luck with good management in the future.

Its also my opinion that Wall should go back to school . PG is the one position where playing time is crucial to development. He got killed by the one good point guard(devan downey) that he’s played against all year.

mrparker—I had the same thoughts in comparison with Blair. Cousins does run like Frankenstein’s monster, however. He’s going to need to work on his feet. I also agree with IS; Tim Duncan is a great example, he’s been a center offensively and a forward defensively.

Just because it might be difficult to classify a player correctly according to the position at which he actually happens to play for his team is no reason to suggest that it is something other than a fundamental requirement in order to assess approrpiately the authentic value of a specific player in the NBA.

It’s the coaches in the NBA who decide how the players on their team are used … and the fact is that the coaches in this league categorize players according to the 5 designated positions of PG/#1, OG/#2, SF/#3, PF/#4 and C/#5.

i.e. there’s a gigantic factual difference when a NBA team runs a 1-5 Pick and Roll compared with a 2-5 version, or a 1-4, or a 1-3, or a 2-4, etc., etc., etc.

e.g. NBA coaches do not assign defensive responsiblities on a given possession according to the following terms:

I want one of our Guards on the floor to check one of their Guards; and, one of our Bigs to check one of their Bigs, as well. Etc., etc., etc.

Anyone who thinks that that is how a real live NBA cach doles out his players’ individual defensive responsibilities and offensive play calling simply does not know the first thing about, How An NBA Team Actually Works.

Yes … there are plenty of players with specific skill-sets that are useful at more than one position, either, offensively, defensively or in terms of rebounding assignments.

Yes … there are plenty of instances when the same player is required to check one position defensively, while he’s being asked to perform at a different position at the offensive end of the floor.

Yes … the very best players are, by definition, multi-dimensional warriors who versatile enough to be able to compete successfully at a multitude of different roles within any single game.

etc., etc., etc.

None of that means, however, that it is somehow not a fundamental requirement to classify players correctly, by position, according to the 5 designated slots used by NBA coaches, on a daily basis, when deciding how to deploy the players on their roster … if the goal is to evaluate the worth and effectiveness of those players accurately, in the first place.

IMO, any type of basketball analysis which fails to do this properly … including stats-based data driven material … is a giant waste of time.

Example #1.

IMO, an actual NBA coach like Jeff Van Gundy will simply laugh in the face of anyone who tries to tell him that Tim Duncan has been used as anything other than the CENTER for the San Antonio since the retirement of David Robinson … including Gregg Popovich, when he tries to pretend that the Big Fundamental has “really” been playing PF for the Spurs for the last few seasons. :-)

Example #2.

Bargnani plays Center for the Raptors.
Bosh plays Power Forward for the Raptors.

The fact that Bargnani has some perimeter skills that you might frequently associate with what a typical SF might display doe not mean that Bargnani SHOULD be classified properly as a player at that specific.

The fact that Bosh is most often used as the Raptors’ primary low-post scoring option is not a legitimate reason to say that he plays Center for Toronto.

The fact is … when they are on the court together, which happens quite a bit, Bosh almost always checks the opponent’s smaller, quicker, more perimeter-oriented non-ball-handling player, while Bargnani checks their bigger, slower, less perimeter-oriented non-ball-handling player.

However, neither is it cut and dried that a player should ALWAYS be classified according to the position he actually plays on defense … e.g. as an all-time great PG, like Magic Johnson, was, in fact, frequently deployed by the Lakers as a defensive player at the OG/#2, or SF/#3, or PF/#4 position, depending on who was on the floor with him at the time.

IMO, proper positional understanding of where a player actually fits in the operation of his team is a fundamental aspect of evaluating individuals accurately in the NBA.

2. re: “There is no need for positional adjustments though it is a shortcut sort of measure.”

Please explain this observation in further detail.

i.e. If I’m reading it the right way, in the first place, then, I’m in basic agreement with it, from a conceptual standpoint. e.g. There is no need for “positional adjustments” when evaluating basketball players accurately; when what’s actually required, is that they, first and foremost, be categorized properly, by position [i.e. at PG, OG, SF, PF or C].

If I’m not reading it the right way, to begin with, then, an explanation would be very helpful.

Khandor,
I’m of the mind set that good rebounders should be judged against other good rebounders. Scorers should be graded against other scorers, etc, etc. Adjusting according to position is a nice simple method because in the nba positions are very role specific. It gives a pretty clear picture. However, I think actually grading by role gives an even clearer picture of what a given player brings to an average NBA team.